While I don't agree with everything in this post, I appreciate some more factual information regarding Assange. I think people like himself, or Snowden, are too big to be part of what reveals the truth any longer, so they're part of the narrative and have been for quite some time.
In intelligence there's the pro-narrative, which is run by the media and in public typically, and the con narrative, which is run by "underground" movements. Both of these are supported by various agencies globally. They're two sides of the same coin.
I'm not saying however that what wikileaks hasn't produced isn't factual however. The Seth Rich files seem genuine, containing sig files that match the owners. The latest State Dept , and then following w/e Swordfish releases, these will likely prove genuine.
Guccifer was an interesting case and some of the DNC tried to use that as spin to prove Russian collusion in the election, which was disproven to an embarassing degree.
There's good work being done, a lot of it on anonymous imageboards, from various insiders, analysts, and people with just A LOT of time on their hands. So while I don't buy into Assange/Snowden/Manning's characters I trust the information however when it has been verified - vetted by multiple sources.
After all there's still work to be done, and the dismantling of long standing institutions of power/corruption can't be done alone =)
I can't 100% agree with that. I am part of the con/underground narrative and I am not in anyway connected to the media, government or elites. I can't be bought - I would rather die than sell my soul to these people.
I don't completely disagree with you either - most of the alt-media is controlled by the government which is what I more less said in this post, and my last post. This is what I said:
I also wrote this:
I think that I may have covered most of the points that you raised in Part 1 of this series?
Irrespective, thank you for commenting and engaging. I appreciate it, always!